THIS is why I've always hated Adobe

| why would anyone willingly install flash?
|
| it's no longer needed and hasn't been for several years.

I wouldn't say I willingly install it. I've never had
it on my computers. But some sites do use it. Many
of those don't have Flash-alternative content. I
manage machines for a number of friends. Often
the attitude is, "I just want everything to work".
They don't care about my security rants. So the next
best thing I can do is to install it but keep it updated.
The attacks on Flash come regularly.

In article , Mayayana
wrote:

| why would anyone willingly install flash?
|
| it's no longer needed and hasn't been for several years.

I wouldn't say I willingly install it. I've never had
it on my computers. But some sites do use it.

the ones that do almost always offer html5 versions due to the
proliferation of mobile devices which do not have flash.

Many
of those don't have Flash-alternative content.

very, very few, and usually it's a site that has a dedicated app so it
does't actually matter. just download the app, which also offers a much
better user experience.

I manage machines for a number of friends. Often
the attitude is, "I just want everything to work".
They don't care about my security rants. So the next
best thing I can do is to install it but keep it updated.
The attacks on Flash come regularly.

too regularly.

remove it and the problem goes away.

| Many
| of those don't have Flash-alternative content.
|
| very, very few, and usually it's a site that has a dedicated app so it
| does't actually matter. just download the app, which also offers a much
| better user experience.
|

It sounds like you're talking about phones. I'm just
talking about computers. I certainly wouldn't download
any "app" onto my computer in order to access a
website. Flash, ActiveX and Java should have taught
us that running executables to make a webpage work
is not a good idea. It also undermines the whole idea
of the Internet being an open medium if every URL
becomes essentially extra functionality for an installed
software program. I heartily agree with you that Flash
must go. Likewise with PDF plugins, Java and ActiveX.
I'd also like to see dedicated apps go. With phones as
powerful as computers, there's no reason one should need
an app for every major website.
But Flash is still around, whether you like it or not.

Awhile back I had dealings with a realtor and mentioned
that his site was inflexible and was completely blank for
me. Some hotshot web designer had produced
it as a Flash file. The whole thing. That's still
not unusual. I pointed out that he might lose customers
who think his site is dead. The realtor explained to me
patiently that the customers he cares about surely have
high end computers, better than mine and capable of
viewing "high end" websites. I didn't pursue it further.
I knew there'd be no chance of explaining the situation
to him. He thought he'd bought a Cadillac website.

Likewise, if I have a friend who wants to visit that
realtor's site, they're not interested in my opinions
about Flash. They just want to see the website. Next
time I'll try telling them that the famous nospam says
they shouldn't, but I'm not sure how well that's going
to go over.

In article , Mayayana
wrote:

| Many
| of those don't have Flash-alternative content.
|
| very, very few, and usually it's a site that has a dedicated app so it
| does't actually matter. just download the app, which also offers a much
| better user experience.

It sounds like you're talking about phones. I'm just
talking about computers.

a *huge* number of people visit sites from their mobile devices, both
phones and tablets, which are in every way a computer.

google is now ranking search results based on if the relevant sites are
mobile friendly. if you do a search from a phone or tablet mobile
friendly sites show up ahead of sites that are not mobile friendly.

I certainly wouldn't download
any "app" onto my computer in order to access a
website. Flash, ActiveX and Java should have taught
us that running executables to make a webpage work
is not a good idea. It also undermines the whole idea
of the Internet being an open medium if every URL
becomes essentially extra functionality for an installed
software program.

the web is good for many things but it's definitely not good for
everything.

I heartily agree with you that Flash
must go. Likewise with PDF plugins, Java and ActiveX.
I'd also like to see dedicated apps go. With phones as
powerful as computers, there's no reason one should need
an app for every major website.

yes there is, because a native app offers a much better user experience
than a web page ever could.

But Flash is still around, whether you like it or not.

not in any significant amount and getting smaller every day.

the majority of sites with flash will automatically offer html5 content
if the client computer has no flash. they have to do that, otherwise
mobile users would not be able to see their content.

for some reason, there are still a small number of sites that have not
seen the memo that flash is dead and that mobile devices do not have it
at all, which means they aren't interested in visitors. maybe they'll
figure it out one day.

Awhile back I had dealings with a realtor and mentioned
that his site was inflexible and was completely blank for
me. Some hotshot web designer had produced
it as a Flash file. The whole thing. That's still
not unusual. I pointed out that he might lose customers
who think his site is dead.

good advice.

The realtor explained to me
patiently that the customers he cares about surely have
high end computers, better than mine and capable of
viewing "high end" websites. I didn't pursue it further.
I knew there'd be no chance of explaining the situation
to him. He thought he'd bought a Cadillac website.

many high end computers don't come with flash anymore, leaving it up to
the user to install if they want, but how many will bother when so few
sites require it? the system works fine *without* flash.

anyway, one day he'll learn and fix his site, perhaps the hard way.

Likewise, if I have a friend who wants to visit that
realtor's site, they're not interested in my opinions
about Flash. They just want to see the website. Next
time I'll try telling them that the famous nospam says
they shouldn't, but I'm not sure how well that's going
to go over.

tell them that site uses obsolete technology and then point them to
competing sites that work which are interested in serving their
visitors.

On 4/23/2015 9:47 AM, Mayayana wrote:
| Many
| of those don't have Flash-alternative content.
|
| very, very few, and usually it's a site that has a dedicated app so it
| does't actually matter. just download the app, which also offers a much
| better user experience.
|

It sounds like you're talking about phones. I'm just
talking about computers. I certainly wouldn't download
any "app" onto my computer in order to access a
website. Flash, ActiveX and Java should have taught
us that running executables to make a webpage work
is not a good idea. It also undermines the whole idea
of the Internet being an open medium if every URL
becomes essentially extra functionality for an installed
software program. I heartily agree with you that Flash
must go. Likewise with PDF plugins, Java and ActiveX.
I'd also like to see dedicated apps go. With phones as
powerful as computers, there's no reason one should need
an app for every major website.
But Flash is still around, whether you like it or not.

Awhile back I had dealings with a realtor and mentioned
that his site was inflexible and was completely blank for
me. Some hotshot web designer had produced
it as a Flash file. The whole thing. That's still
not unusual. I pointed out that he might lose customers
who think his site is dead. The realtor explained to me
patiently that the customers he cares about surely have
high end computers, better than mine and capable of
viewing "high end" websites. I didn't pursue it further.
I knew there'd be no chance of explaining the situation
to him. He thought he'd bought a Cadillac website.

Likewise, if I have a friend who wants to visit that
realtor's site, they're not interested in my opinions
about Flash. They just want to see the website. Next
time I'll try telling them that the famous nospam says
they shouldn't, but I'm not sure how well that's going
to go over.

There are website makers and good website developers. A friend, who owns
a smalll bookstore, had just gotten a new website. I was playing with
it, and to me it looked just like the Microsoft demonstration website
for a book store. Without gong into details, I doubt if it too more than
afew hours to do the conversion and add a shopping cart. My friend was
charged a bit over 20k. In the end my friend got most of his money back,
and went to a different seveloper.





--
PeterN

On 2015-04-22 02:33, Bill W wrote:

Adobe is evil. I swear they are run by Satan himself.

My Evil Issue is that after recovering from a disk error I had to
re-install CS-5 from scratch and now it refuses to install the updates
to CS5.. At least the license is valid (but I have to keep the old CS-3
license handy as well as that was the predecessor).

Not a big issue. But it is definitely irritating.

I can see remaining with CS5 until OS updates won't support it anymore.
At that point I would leave it on an old Mac and do my photo edits
there. These days I'm hardly shooting in any case and what little I do
only needs modest edits.

Adobe installation and update software has always been crappy IMO.
Worst, it is NOT AT ALL NEEDED ON OS' like OS X and Windows. Each have
well defined and functional update managers and Adobe should leave that
job to the OS makers. In OS X that can be .DMG's, .ZIP or managed via
Apple's App Store installation App (though I'd understand Adobe not
using that). The Adobe installation managers ARE NOT NEEDED AT ALL.

On 2015-04-22 11:33, John McWilliams wrote:
On 4/21/15 PDT 11:33 PM, Bill W wrote:

Okay, after I finished typing this rant, I figure why not try
rebooting the computer before I send this. I do that, and everything
is fixed, and I'm downloading the new LR right now. This is all great,
but it still goes back to Adobe's klutzy software. Why didn't it tell
me to reboot? I install *lots* of software, and the ones that need
rebooting have installers that tell you that you must reboot. Always.
Adobe told me no such thing. I know that there was a time when it was
good policy to always reboot after any changes, but we've moved on
from there long ago. This ain't Windows 3.1 anymore.

Adobe is evil. I swear they are run by Satan himself.

Perhaps it's your O/S that's lacking?

Adobe's update manager is a POS on OS X as well. To boot, update
managers are not necessary on OS' like OS X or Windows. Each OS
provides such services quite well.

On 2015-04-24 16:13:57 +0000, Alan Browne said:

On 2015-04-22 02:33, Bill W wrote:

Adobe is evil. I swear they are run by Satan himself.

My Evil Issue is that after recovering from a disk error I had to
re-install CS-5 from scratch and now it refuses to install the updates
to CS5.. At least the license is valid (but I have to keep the old
CS-3 license handy as well as that was the predecessor).

Not a big issue. But it is definitely irritating.

I can see remaining with CS5 until OS updates won't support it anymore.
At that point I would leave it on an old Mac and do my photo edits
there. These days I'm hardly shooting in any case and what little I do
only needs modest edits.

Adobe installation and update software has always been crappy IMO.
Worst, it is NOT AT ALL NEEDED ON OS' like OS X and Windows. Each have
well defined and functional update managers and Adobe should leave that
job to the OS makers. In OS X that can be .DMG's, .ZIP or managed via
Apple's App Store installation App (though I'd understand Adobe not
using that). The Adobe installation managers ARE NOT NEEDED AT ALL.

Things have changed with the CC subscription model. I have had no
issues with updates and installations of new versions PS CC to PS
CC(2014) & LR5 to LR CC/6 as well as ACR updates to all including PS
CS6.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 2015-04-24 16:15:28 +0000, Alan Browne said:

On 2015-04-22 11:33, John McWilliams wrote:
On 4/21/15 PDT 11:33 PM, Bill W wrote:

Okay, after I finished typing this rant, I figure why not try
rebooting the computer before I send this. I do that, and everything
is fixed, and I'm downloading the new LR right now. This is all great,
but it still goes back to Adobe's klutzy software. Why didn't it tell
me to reboot? I install *lots* of software, and the ones that need
rebooting have installers that tell you that you must reboot. Always.
Adobe told me no such thing. I know that there was a time when it was
good policy to always reboot after any changes, but we've moved on
from there long ago. This ain't Windows 3.1 anymore.

Adobe is evil. I swear they are run by Satan himself.

Perhaps it's your O/S that's lacking?

Adobe's update manager is a POS on OS X as well. To boot, update
managers are not necessary on OS' like OS X or Windows. Each OS
provides such services quite well.

There is no need for the Adobe update manager with the CC. It handles
updates and new release installations without problems on OSX, ...for
me anyway.

--
Regards,

Savageduck